Should we consider a candidate's religion when we vote? For many of us, the instinctive answer is "of course not!" To do so seems somehow contrary to the idea of separation of church and state, or prejudiced, or something like that. Examined more closely, though, that instinctive reaction may not be the best answer. Faith influences action, and there is no reason to pretend otherwise when we go to the polls.
The American repulsion to considering faith when voting is in large part rooted in a famous speech given by John F. Kennedy when he was running for President in 1960. Addressing a convention of Baptist ministers in Houston, he defended himself from the accusation that his Catholic faith would lead him to "take orders from the Pope." There is no doubt that what Kennedy was addressing was prejudice against Catholics. It was a masterful speech, of the sort that makes one wistful for that time. However, it is important to recognize what Kennedy did and did not say.
What he did say, forcefully, was that he would not take orders from the Church, and that he would make his decisions "in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates."
What he did not say, even in referring to his religious views as "his own private affair," was that those personal religious views would have no influence on his conduct in office. In other words, President Kennedy artfully established that outside forces would not force his hand, while reserving the ability to have his own personal faith remain a guide to principled action.
Sadly, this fine distinction between the unallowable (a church dictating policy) and the inevitable (personal faith influencing decision-making) has been lost, in part because of Kennedy's clumsy and inaccurate description of the separation between church and state as "absolute." Americans now expect a President who lives in two spheres: A private life, where religion is allowed, and a professional life where faith can have no influence.
The problem with this two-spheres construct is that it lacks integrity, if we understand integrity to be the integration of belief and action. What kind of faith is it that has no influence on the most important decisions we make? Why would we accept as a leader someone who divorces her deepest principles from her actions?
In the current election, all of the Presidential candidates (in either party) are Christians who seem to take their faith seriously, which makes the question posed here an important one. Would Mitt Romney's Mormon faith affect the way he conducts himself in office? I certainly hope it would, because I believe that faith (for those who have chosen to follow a faith) should be an animating principle that does direct action, not something that a leader drops at the doorway as he enters the oval office. It seems that Romney agrees, too: In a speech at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library in December, 2007, Governor Romney echoed the distinction (between external influence and personal faith) that Kennedy implied. While recognizing that "no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions," Romney went on to explain that "I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers -- I will be true to them and to my beliefs."
Imagine this: There is a grave national crisis, perhaps an escalating conflict with another nation. The President must make a tough choice on how to respond. As a Christian, he reflects on this decision in prayer. If we tell ourselves that the experience of prayer, that deep and solemn reflection, really has no influence on the decision he then makes, we are fooling ourselves. The connection between faith and action, even in the absence of external pressure from a church, not only is real but should be real. We are better off knowing a candidate's personal faith and the effect it will have than continuing to pretend that there is no connection between faith and action. We need to press for honest answers from our politicians as to how their faith influences their work.
In a January 8 op-ed in The Washington Post, Baylor University President Ken Starr correctly observed that "the litmus for our elected leaders must not be the church they attend but the Constitution they defend." He is right, but that is not the end of the story. We should not limit the path to leadership based on the church someone attends (or doesn't), but on the personal beliefs they hold and how those beliefs influence action. If Rick Santorum's personal faith somehow dictates that the legal marriages of gay men and lesbians should be annulled by the government... yes, I am going to consider that when I vote against him, regardless of his church membership.
To people of faith, religious belief profoundly influences our professional lives. If it does not, it is only a shadowy outline of what faith should be. As voters, we should not pretend otherwise, and with overtly Christian candidates we should support those who reflect prayerfully, live with integrity, and whose faith guides them to positions we support.
Defamation of religion and the United Nations - Wikipedia, the free ...
Religion continues to impact voting | WWLP.com
Egypt's Vote Puts Emphasis on Split Over Religious Rule
Religion and Politics in the United States: Nuances You Should Know
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Jimmy Carter notwithstanding, I would never vote for a devout follower of any conservative religion. I'd never vote for anyone who thinks it's a good idea to merge religion with public policy; that schools should let religion supplant science; or that facts which contradict religious superstition must be denied. The worst of the worst among Republicans are the ones who profess to be deeply religious. Without their profound love of Jesus, there probably would have been no torture.
And the thing I like least about Obama is the show he makes of his christianity so as to pander to the yahoos who think the president should be a holy roller. It's shameful.
Nor, while one is focusing one's entire attention to one's plea to one's god, is one's intellectual attention focused on problem solving and weighing various options and opinions collected from the members of one's advisory and policy enacting teams.
Not a false choice at all, and crises are not typically a time in which to say, "don't worry about the missiles about to strike your people - first, kneel, clasp your hands, recall the words, send your message, wait futilely for a response (or, even more alarmingly, imagine one upon which one then bases real-life actions with global consequences), unclasp your hands, get up, get out of the bedroom and head to the war roo--oh, nevermind, we're all dead.
Think of it this way: would you be comfortable if you knew your Commander in Chief consulted with a giant invisible rabbit whenever faced with a major decision, and then was guided in their decision first and foremost on what he or she imagined the rabbit told them back?
If we want integrity governing our government we need to look for someone who will go against the grain of religion's dos and dont's and corporations' attempt at bribery. a person of integrity will not be someone looking like anyone else because they are only conforming because of pier pressure. Look around and find someone who lives their live in an uncommon way and you have someone with integrity who "thinks outside of the box" enough to govern this nation.
I know of only one, look at the photo of Elijah, does he fit what I've just said? Read his petition and sign http://www.change.org/petitions/eliminate-capitalistic-military-regime if you agree to allow this nation to be free of Religious and Corporation's control.
That "if" is where the entire argument fails, because it makes an underlying, unfounded assumption that belief is strictly a religious concept.
The harsh reality is our culture is bigoted against atheists and more generally non-Christians. So for most people, even if they personally aren't religious, being boldly nonreligious, especially atheist, or even being Buddhist is just not an option. They have to be Christian or Jewish or spiritual but not religious etc.
The problem here is creating a society that is tolerant of things like atheism so that people who are really atheists can just be atheists (and similarly with other religious views).
You don't merely want "tolerance", but the destruction of all organized religion. Dan Jighter's way or the highway..
"The only freedom of religion is for there to be no religion. I don't think religion should even exist, NO ONE should practice religion. Religion even existing is incompatible with the sort of society trying to be built and practiced in the United States. Religion is also intellectually dishonest in the extreme. Religion must cease to exist." -- Dan Jighter
The Catholic faith has been tarnished by the scandal. I believe they should be very careful who they let in. Father Damien did a lot for the lepers. People who choose this life give up being married but in return they get a whole new public family.In my lifetime Catholics seem to have a universal soul and many are artistic like Victor Hugo.
What America are YOU living in?? ALL of the republican candidates vying for the official party nomination are OPENLY religious, and make no bones about appealing to their constituency in faith-based terminology.